724.3415/1882: Telegram
The Bolivian Minister for Foreign Affairs
(Gutiérrez) to the Secretary of
State
[Translation]
La Paz, July 28,
1932.
[Received 10:10 a.m.]
My Government has received the new cablegram from the representatives
of the neutral countries, dated the 25th instant, in which they
repeat their request that we return to Washington and submit the
Chaco incidents to the cognizance of the neutrals. They remind us of
the communication of July 9 from our delegates,41 in which they stated that
the occupation of the Chuquisaca Lagoon by Major
Moscoso on June 15 and the first Paraguayan
attack of June 29, might be a subject for the cognizance of the
neutrals, as it was the opinion of Bolivia that, notwithstanding the
unwarranted aggression of June 29, negotiations as to the pact of
non-aggression should not be suspended. They also remind us of the
statement of our delegates on July 18, offering to place in their
hands the matter of conciliation in connection with the incidents of
July 15 and thereafter. They add that Paraguay consented on July 23
to the return of her delegates to Washington. We reply in the
following terms:
- “First, it is necessary to clear up a few facts
mentioned in the cable referred to. It is true that our
delegates, in a memorandum of July 9,
[Page 47]
stated that with regard to
the occupation of the west shore of the Chuquisaca
Lagoon on June 15 and the attack of the 29th of that
month, the former might be made the subject of a
Paraguayan claim and the second a subject of cognizance
by the neutrals, thus giving on our part the best proof
of pacific intentions in offering to continue the
conferences, notwithstanding the Paraguayan aggression
which took place on June 29.
- Second, the verbal statement of our delegates to Mr.
White on July
18 offering to place in the hands of the neutrals the
settlement of the incident of July 15 is not in
conformity with the facts and the dates. That statement
of the 18th still referred to the attack of June 29 and
not to that of July 15. Our delegates could hardly on
July 18 submit for conciliation, the armed attack of the
15 of this month, as it was only on the 19 that the news
of this second Paraguayan attack was received. According
to communications from our delegates on the 20 and 21 of
July, in that conversation with Mr. White, reference was
made to the incidents of June 15 and 29 and not to the
powerful aggression of July 15. We desire to have this
explanation perfectly clear.
- Third. If our proved pacific intentions led us to
continue in the conferences notwithstanding the first
attack of June 29, the most elementary (considerations
of) dignity demanded that we declare the conversations
at Washington at an end upon the repetition of
Paraguayan aggression on a large scale.
- Fourth, Paraguay opposed continuing the conferences
after attacking us on June 29. She broke them off in
order to carry out with premeditation the aggression of
July 15. After it on July 23 she showed herself very
determined to continue them, declaring that she would
not commit any act of armed hostility against Bolivia.
This declaration would have been timely and significant
before committing the two acts of aggression (but when)
made subsequently it amounts to adding insult to injury.
However great may be the sentiments of gratitude we owe
to the neutral Governments which so generously intervene
in this dispute Bolivia can do no less than to reaffirm
the ideas expressed in our cablegram of the 24th
instant.”
I greet Your Excellency [etc.]
